This decision is interesting in this respect, although it takes into consideration a completely different issue, since the judge has recognized an oral agreement for a rental agreement: in the absence of an agreement and if it cannot be determined by the interpretation of the contract, the legal consequences of the contract are governed by the provisions of impossibility (§275, § 326 BGB) and termination of the basis of transaction (§313 BGB). It is possible, for example, that the performance obligation is completely abolished due to impossibility or that the parties have the right of withdrawal. An oral contract is also a contract than a written contract, but it is more difficult to implement for all obvious reasons. Is an oral agreement to start the recruitment process with a German company in Germany binding under German law? In other words, should you sign the contract as soon as it`s ready? Prohibition of restrictive agreements In addition, in its decision of 15 November 2012 (IX ZR 169/11), the Federal Court of Justice decided whether a termination clause due to insolvency was valid in a long-term bilateral contract. The Federal Court of Justice has concluded that contractual termination clauses that relate to the commencement of insolvency proceedings (or the terms of such proceedings) are in principle void under Article 119 of the INSO, as they prevent the receiver from exercising his discretion to pursue a contract under Article 103 of the InsO. And even if both parties had the same deal in mind at the time of the handshake, good luck proving it. Only contracts negotiated individually between the parties are not included in the provisions of the BGB relating to the general conditions of sale. “Negotiate” means more than negotiating. The party indicating the conditions must have a serious impact on the central content of its general conditions of sale and give the other party a real degree of freedom to protect its own interests and a real possibility of influencing the content of the terms of the contract. The party requesting the terms must be prepared to accept the requested changes to the agreement and inform the other party of the content and impact of the terms. These exceptions are rarely respected. There are many details in the written lease that the potential tenant would not have known and therefore could not be bound.
While the rule is universally recognized, it is accepted in its true form only in the common law tradition. While common law parol classifies ordinary law evidence as a substantive rule of law, civil law classifies each equivalent as a rule of evidence,[14] which is primarily procedural in nature and not substantive in nature. Civil or commercial codes generally contain the presumption that a written text is the final agreement of the parties and should be respected on the basis of pacta sunt servanda and the principle of good faith. [15] In certain circumstances, civil codes allow for certain restrictions on Parol`s evidence, and this may also depend on the respective jurisdiction. . . .
Comments are closed.